Advertisement

Advertisement

BIG PHYSICS, BIG QUESTIONS –

Forum: A voyage of self-discovery – Jeff Dunn thinks that collaboration and guidance are key aspects

By JEFF DUNN

Not long ago New Scientist published Simon Wolff’s comments about why
to avoid doing a PhD (Forum, 6 June). It may be that such tongue-in-cheek
writing should not be taken at face value but I still think it appropriate
to offer an alternate view. Unfortunately, this reply may come too late
as any student who has not already committed suicide after reading the aforementioned
article probably shares some of my opinions on the subject.

The realisation of what a studentship is really like is hard to convey.
In some ways these discussions are best left to late night sessions in a
student bar. At the end of the day, however, someone must try to tell potential
students what they are getting into, and current students how they may best
proceed.

I think it was unfortunate and irresponsible for Wolff to write that
all supervisors use their students only for ‘slave labour’ and that they
do ‘not want to see any intellectual development’. Wolff describes the prototype
supervisor which every student should try to avoid. It is a product of even
greater thoughtlessness to write that all PhD projects are considered useless
by ‘anybody sane and in touch with reality’. This man is not going to win
a gold star for motivational skills.

British education is clearly going through a bad patch and it is important
that unsatisfactory aspects of the system are reviewed and improved. So
I shall attempt to consider the plight of the student in this light and
to offer advice to budding Isaac Newtons about reasonable expectations and
potential results of doing a higher degree.

Advertisement

During the first few months of a PhD the candidate’s feelings are more
likely to be associated with depression and misery than with academic revolution
and excitement. A degree is designed to produce intellectual advancement
and there is a gap as wide as the Channel between the work ethic required
to get a first-class BSc and that needed to do independent research. Anyone
who has not attempted to leap such a gap will find it impossible to understand
fully the personal search for the self-motivation required to make that
jump. Many supervisors fail in their duties during this period.

It is easy for a student to take on a project where the experiment is
already designed, where the techniques are already available and where the
conclusions are expected. In short, to treat the student as a glorified
technician – one who will fill in the blanks of the supervisor’s major
projects. Let’s not pull punches, this is common in Britain. But let’s also
realise that if the student can develop quickly enough through collaboration
and guidance (preferable from the supervisor but also from his or her peers),
the rewards will be worth the effort. At this point the student becomes
a collaborator and not a technician. The time that the supervisor spends
in assisting this transition will be rewarded in two areas: the lack of
supervision required in the later stages of the degree and the potential
for innovative ideas that a young, fresh mind can bring to a project. The
student in return acquires a new set of mind-tools – logical thought, critical
appraisal – and a self-confidence which he or she can bring to bear on future
endeavours.

This brings me to the potential results of undertaking a higher degree.
As I said, there is an enormous amount of self-discovery in obtaining a
degree. At worst this kind of discovery can tell you what you do not want
to do for the rest of your life. It is no surprise that many professional
associations will hire PhD students because these students often have a
special level of emotional maturity. They have certainly developed their
capacity for self-motivation.

At best, the project that the student works on will actually lead to
an exciting development in their field. It is true that this is the nirvana,
the Holy Grail of the PhD. It is also true it is often not achieved – for
reasons which include choosing too predictable a project, poor experimental
design, simple bad luck or poor supervision. This is the fish that keeps
the fisherman waiting. The point to keep in mind is that fishermen can still
have a wonderful time even if they do not catch anything. The same is true
for the PhD student. The process of undertaking the project is as important
to a student’s development and self-satisfaction as is the result.

At the end of it all, what then? There are few jobs, the pay is not
what you will get in business and the job security is being eaten away.
If the supervisor has not given the student some insight into the rewards
of academic toil then the only path available will be into business. On
the other hand, there will be a few who are motivated by the academic challenge
and, in addition, want to improve the system from within. One would like
to think that these people are recognised and encouraged to enter the academic
world – if only to replace the supervisors Wolff describes.

Jeff Dunn is a senior scientist at the MRC Biochemical and Clinical
Magnetic Resonance Unit at the University of Oxford.